Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Russian invasion of Ukraine/Belief of Mainstream Media Narrative

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, EC said:

Oh, I understood completely. You were attempting to question my "qualifications". But, why is an actual general (who's almost certainly far less intelligent than I am, as you also are) more "qualified" to speak accurately about these issues than myself? Because said intellectually inferior general attended West Point and was indoctrinated into collectivist military type thinking? That's actually a disqualification for proper thinking no matter how otherwise competent the man happens to be. Specialization, and people like you that are overly obsessed and irrationally only respect the ideas of "experts" is a cancer on man's advancement as a species. A proper man should be able do and understand everything (within reason).

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=armchair philosopher

"A typical armchair philosopher is somebody who is a complete know-it-all, usually a douchebag or self-declared intellectual. They always feel the need to seem intellectually superior to others [ ... ]"

" ... intellectually inferior general[s who] attended West Point ... "

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Do you [Stephen] remember your favorite ribbing for . . . ?

"Armchair Philosopher."

If only you could see you now!

Before philosopher-pronouncements on nuclear strategy, on game theory in social sciences, or on economics, one needs, if serious, to study those areas and learn what they say and why. In them will be historical experience as well as "theory." That means one needs to read books. Just reading Atlas Shrugged and casting people you encounter into fictional villains therein is a short circuit, not insight into the real world around one. Pronouncing versions of the slogan of fideists immemorial "there are none so blind as they who won't see" is expressive of condemnation of opposing views, but it is also psychological bolstering of the religionist's routine self-blinding to their special arena of poor fits with their easy, value-laden inner "Truth" (poor-fit arena: perceptual reality in their case). I am mostly self-educated, but it is not from what my high school teachers called the "idiot box" (TV). The presumption that writers here are informed in their views mainly from media de jour, mainstream or not, is false. And some of us were not born yesterday into events of the world; we've lived through a bit and remember.

Nuclear Crisis Management

The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy

In 1985 I wrote a study on nuclear capabilities and strategy. There are technological and geopolitical changes since then of course. The part of the study parallel the situation with Russia and Ukraine/Eastern Europe today was the part remarking on the situation of West Germany at that time. I'll try to post copies of that study here in this post and perhaps following ones. The title and the subheadings were written by the editors, but I think they are almost always close enough to the mark on what is addressed in the text under them. I don't know about other sorts of machines, but on my I-Mac, the way I make the print large enough for old eyes to read is by holding down the Command key and tapping on the + over in the array of keys to the right of the alphabet keys. 

Scan 19.jpeg

Scan 20.jpeg

Scan 21.jpeg

Scan 22.jpeg

Scan 23.jpeg

Scan 24.jpeg

Scan 25.jpeg

Scan 26.jpeg

Scan 27.jpeg

Scan 28.jpeg

Scan 29.jpeg

Part 2 in next post I make.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Before philosopher-pronouncements on nuclear strategy, on game theory in social sciences, or on economics, one needs, if serious, to study those areas and learn what they say and why. In them will be historical experience as well as "theory." That means one needs to read books. Just reading Atlas Shrugged and casting people you encounter into fictional villains therein is a short circuit, not insight into the real world around one. Pronouncing versions of the slogan of fideists immemorial "there are none so blind as they who won't see" is expressive of condemnation of opposing views, but it is also psychological bolstering of the religionist's routine self-blinding to their special arena of poor fits with their easy, value-laden inner "Truth" (poor-fit arena: perceptual reality in their case). I am mostly self-educated, but it is not from what my high school teachers called the "idiot box" (TV). The presumption that writers here are informed in their views mainly from media de jour, mainstream or not, is false. And some of us were not born yesterday into events of the world; we've lived through a bit and remember.

Nuclear Crisis Management

The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy

In 1985 I wrote a study on nuclear capabilities and strategy. There are technological and geopolitical changes since then of course. The part of the study parallel the situation with Russia and Ukraine/Eastern Europe today was the part remarking on the situation of West Germany at that time. I'll try to post copies of that study here in this post and perhaps following ones. The title and the subheadings were written by the editors, but I think they are almost always close enough to the mark on what is addressed in the text under them. I don't know about other sorts of machines, but on my I-Mac, the way I make the print large enough for old eyes to read is by holding down the Command key and tapping on the + over in the array of keys to the right of the alphabet keys. 

image.thumb.png.4a6727db18872881cdddb28017ba7c09.png

You sincerely tried to get up-to-date, thirty-seven years ago, on the nuclear aspect of the Cold War between USA and USSR. That's excellent.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I made a mistake in my scan of the page having the heading "The Usefulness of Barking". The text below the double line across the page is not anything from my article and should be omitted from effort to comprehend my study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Sorry, but I made a mistake in my scan of the page having the heading "The Usefulness of Barking". The text below the double line across the page is not anything from my article and should be omitted from effort to comprehend my study.

OK, not part of your study.

May I ask: Did you write it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=armchair philosopher

"A typical armchair philosopher is somebody who is a complete know-it-all, usually a douchebag or self-declared intellectual. They always feel the need to seem intellectually superior to others [ ... ]"

" ... intellectually inferior general[s who] attended West Point ... "

It's not a "need" it's just a fact that I'm intellectually superior. Also, I'm not a db, just a dick, and you just suck but other than that me and you have nothing in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boydstun said:

Just reading Atlas Shrugged and casting people you encounter into fictional villains therein is a short circuit, not insight into the real world around one.

That's your response to my assertion that only a corroded soul would accept an offer from Biden to run The Ministry of Truth.

I suggested Atlas Shrugged for details and examples, but I shouldn't even have to if you are anywhere near the Objectivist Politics.

Do you mean to deny that she possesses a corroded soul?

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Why can't anyone take Putin's objectives at his word? A neutral Ukraine; a non-NATO Ukraine; demilitarized and de-Nazified; and the "liberation" of repressed Russian Ukrainians. Period.

He has never shown the slightest amount of honesty. There isn't anyone to liberate (if you have evidence, show something besides RT, since state run media organizations are the least reliable type of journalism), Ukraine isn't Nazified (if you look, you could find some Nazis, but you could do that in any military, US included, meaning that there is no meaningful political or military presence). 

Of course you saw that I agree that both sides are not angels, but compared to Russia, the Ukraine is an angel. 

I just get sick of the stupidity from you, JL, tad, and other random new people that stop around. Mostly just asking questions, putting forth ideas of things that are to be questioned by governments, but then stopping short of any meaningful analysis. It's like, I get it, you are giving an edgy take, but at least provide some good sources

I don't mind a layperson's discussion of geopolitics and all that, but speaking about geopolitics as if you want to explain what Russia's motivations are and suggest we should be more sympathetic, that's a bit deluded. To whose interests are you speaking here? For South Africa, sure, it probably doesn't matter, but I don't think anyone is really interested in South Africa's position in geopolitics anyway. It's boring. I imagine you want to talk about the interests of the US, in which case understanding the motivations of Russia only matters for asking how that can be used to damage Russia's geopolitical position. Or perhaps you could give an argument that Russia could be very useful for US interests. 

Here's an edgy take: for the geopolitical interests of the US, every country should be used as a pawn.

The geopolitical discussion is interesting. But talking about topics like a Nazified Ukraine or Russia liberating some repressed Russians, that's just trivial and pretty meaningless for figuring out how to respond to the invasion of the Ukraine. Especially since those topics are highly speculative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

It's not a "need" it's just a fact that I'm intellectually superior. Also, I'm not a db, just a dick, and you just suck but other than that me and you have nothing in common.

While I am unsurprised that you struggle to make connections I must strongly suggest you abandon approaches such as that one. You are right that we have nothing in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

OK, not part of your study.

May I ask: Did you write it?

No. That was a portion of a response to an editor's Challenge, and it was written by philosopher Eric Mack.

The Question of the Challenge had been: "What is the appropriate defense policy for a free society?"

Prof. Mack had authored a chapter in Robert Poole's book Defending a Free Society. That chapter was titled "Defending a Free Society." Jeffrey Rogers Hummel had critically reviewed that book, and Mack used the Nomos Challenge to reply to criticisms by Mr. Hummel. Mack addressed innocent-bystander issues further here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

That's your response to my assertion that only a corroded soul would accept an offer from Biden to run The Ministry of Truth.

I suggested Atlas Shrugged for details and examples, but I shouldn't even have to if you are anywhere near the Objectivist Politics.

Do you mean to deny that she possesses a corroded soul?

I do not know who she is or think it worth my time to know who she is. I do think that if one is against Democrats, one should argue the issues on which one disagrees with them, not piddle around with talking about Democrat persons, rather than policy issues. People are not going to be tricked into freedom or progress by easy thought of persons in lieu of hard thought about issues.

I do think that all politicians are liars. That is a generalization of the "all men are mortal" kind. A lot of salespersons more generally are liars. I do not care about their souls. Same with Pres. Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov, although, their characters as colossal liars across decades now is not a deduction from the generalization. I do not care about their souls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

I do not know who she is or think it worth my time to know who she is. I do think that if one is against Democrats, one should argue the issues on which one disagrees with them, not piddle around with talking about Democrat persons, rather than policy issues. People are not going to be tricked into freedom or progress by easy thought of persons in lieu of hard thought about issues.

I do think that all politicians are liars. That is a generalization of the "all men are mortal" kind. A lot of salespersons more generally are liars. I do not care about their souls. Same with Pres. Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov, although, their characters as colossal liars across decades now is not a deduction from the generalization. I do not care about their souls. 

She accepted the job I mentioned. And she also worked on Zelensky's campaign in 2019.

Biden tapped a person who wants Zelensky in power, who is or was employed by Zelensky, to lord over you and everyone else.

But never mind. It is not worth your time. But you'll keep pontificating about it all, without whole swathes of this kind of info. — that kind of "piddling around," namely, in the self-chosen dark, is apparently worth "your time."

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

While I am unsurprised that you struggle to make connections I must strongly suggest you abandon approaches such as that one. You are right that we have nothing in common.

Uh, I made more rational connections by the time I was 18 months old then you will ever make in your entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

She accepted the job I mentioned. And she also worked on Zelensky's campaign in 2019.

Biden tapped a person who wants Zelensky in power to lord over you and everyone else.

But never mind. It is not worth your time. But you'll keep pontificating about it all, without whole swathes of this kind of info. — that kind of "piddling around," namely, in the self-chosen dark, is apparently worth "your time."

Given what I attend to, it is a spectacular claim that this person I never heard of is lording over me. // Stop watching television. There's a lovely and fertile world out here waiting for getting hands dirty and for clean accomplishments.

9:5:22.JPG

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Given what I attend to, it is a spectacular claim that this person I never heard of is lording over me. // Stop watching television. There's a lovely and fertile world out here waiting for getting hands dirty and for clean accomplishments.

9:5:22.JPG

That's why you and so many more here can't really be engaged with on this current event. You are uninformed and you think we get the information "not worth your time" from television or random web sites. You refuse to listen, you steadfastly practice massive evasions. You engage in juvenile, frankly flippant put-downs, instead of the information. You are proud of it.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

That's why you and so many more here can't really be engaged with on this current event. You are uninformed and you think we get the information "not worth your time" from television or random web sites. You refuse to listen, you steadfastly practice massive evasions. You engage in juvenile, frankly flippant put-downs, instead of the information. You are proud of it.

People repeatedly ask you for information, you don't provide information, but report what it says. We can never become informed because you will not provide the information, and when people ask you for the information, you accuse them of evasion or not being engaged or something to the effect of being unwilling to understand. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

That's why you and so many more here can't really be engaged with on this current event.

<Sigh!> So why are you "engaging" with "so many more here" that "can't really be engaged with?"

I abandoned television back in 1995. For all intents and purposes, I do get the gist of my current events from "random" web sites.

If you've more pertinent information: provide it by breaking the abstractions down and showing how they are derived from the precepts from which the more pertinent abstractions were drawn from.

If you can't do this, then I would suggest that it is not a case of the audience that is incapable of understanding, but of a "wanna-be-'preacher' " that is incapable of making its message clear.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, whYNOT said:

DM, you mean Russia could suffer "a lot of defeat" in Ukraine, and yet enter other countries and ... go on suffering "a lot of defeat"?

Please tell me how lots of defeats could be sustainable.

Not sustainable indefinitely, of course.

But probably sustainable enough for at least one more destructive war.

Does anyone really know what's in Putin's mind?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eiuol said:

He has never shown the slightest amount of honesty. There isn't anyone to liberate (if you have evidence, show something besides RT, since state run media organizations are the least reliable type of journalism), Ukraine isn't Nazified (if you look, you could find some Nazis, but you could do that in any military, US included, meaning that there is no meaningful political or military presence). 

Of course you saw that I agree that both sides are not angels, but compared to Russia, the Ukraine is an angel. 

 

 

You presume too much. No. 1: The war did not start with an invasion. It's a matter of record - not from "state run" media but many reliable sources if you care to dig- that a democratically elected Govt. was overthrown in Ukraine involving violence. First aggressive act. That there was indeed repression, socially, culturally and politically of Russian speakers. (As a friend who'd lived there recounted, the perceptions in the EU-turning West was of "the second-class citizens"- Old World peasants). Then a long conflict began in the East by Gov. forces against the attempt at autonomy or break away, of the regions from said repressive regime. Shelling of and incursions into Donbass towns and villages, at fellow citizens, it has to be reminded. Next clear initiation of force.

This was a primarily a ~demographic~ 'problem' that we encounter everywhere in this collectivist time.

In between doubtless there were minor provocations, atrocities and injustices committed by both, one Kyiv backed, using the infamous Russian-loathing, neo-Nazi Azov regiment; and the other "Moscow-backed". (Countless precedents exist of nations defending, arming, utilizing and generally supporting citizenry, dissidents, etc.  in another country against a perceived common foe).

And then the Mink accords weren't implemented, again doubtlessly due to minor infractions by both parties -- but officially the responsibility of the sitting Govt. to implement - not by the rebels. Those were called "terrorists" by this president Zelensky.

This adds up to a chain of initiated force begun with the first cause, a rash, antidemocratic revolution in an originally young, hopeful nation that set the wheels in motion for the  result, a compromised and flawed democracy more familiar to many African countries. (Not to add, of a succession of corrupt governments)So from another perspective, in Putin's perception, he likely saw himself as 'coming to the rescue' of a repressed minority trapped over the Russian border who had suffered injustices, due to identifying more-closely with Russia - who were shortly about to be attacked this year by superior forces supplied and trained by NATO, and probably would be annihilated. From "his point of view", I stress, his 'rescue mission' was a humanitarian, preemptive and defensive action, continuing and escalating from the civil war. I condemn it. However if one doesn't independently try to seek out the truths in the complexity and acknowledge the real facts and events, and generally deduce the value-judgments with the view to accurate moral justice and injustices, because one's authority the msm is slow to reveal them, one is superfluous to this debate. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

You presume too much. No. 1: The war did not start with an invasion. It's a matter of record - not from "state run" media but many reliable sources if you care to dig- that a democratically elected Govt. was overthrown in Ukraine involving violence. First aggressive act. That there was indeed repression, socially, culturally and politically of Russian speakers. (As a friend who'd lived there recounted, the perceptions in the EU-turning West was of "the second-class citizens"- Old World peasants). Then a long conflict began in the East by Gov. forces against the attempt at autonomy or break away, of the regions from said repressive regime. Shelling of and incursions into Donbass towns and villages, at fellow citizens, it has to be reminded. Next clear initiation of force.

This was a primarily a ~demographic~ 'problem' that we encounter everywhere in this collectivist time.

In between doubtless there were minor provocations, atrocities and injustices committed by both, one Kyiv backed, using the infamous Russian-loathing, neo-Nazi Azov regiment; and the other "Moscow-backed". (Countless precedents exist of nations defending, arming, utilizing and generally supporting citizenry, dissidents, etc.  in another country against a perceived common foe).

And then the Mink accords weren't implemented, again doubtlessly due to minor infractions by both parties -- but officially the responsibility of the sitting Govt. to implement - not by the rebels. Those were called "terrorists" by this president Zelensky.

This adds up to a chain of initiated force begun with the first cause, a rash, antidemocratic revolution in an originally young, hopeful nation that set the wheels in motion for the  result, a compromised and flawed democracy more familiar to many African countries. (Not to add, of a succession of corrupt governments)So from another perspective, in Putin's perception, he likely saw himself as 'coming to the rescue' of a repressed minority trapped over the Russian border who had suffered injustices, due to identifying more-closely with Russia - who were shortly about to be attacked this year by superior forces supplied and trained by NATO, and probably would be annihilated. From "his point of view", I stress, his 'rescue mission' was a humanitarian, preemptive and defensive action, continuing and escalating from the civil war. I condemn it. However if one doesn't independently try to seek out the truths in the complexity and acknowledge the real facts and events, and generally deduce the value-judgments with the view to accurate moral justice and injustices, because one's authority the msm is slow to reveal them, one is superfluous to this debate. 

 

So, Putin having a non MSM "point of view" makes it okay to start a war of aggression on a mostly peaceful neighbor and destroy it's cities, murder and rape it's people and leave them dead in the streets or stuff them in mass graves? Now he must also be given things via "negotiations" for doing all these things that you won't declare as evil because he had "reasons"!? Also, the world has no right to defend itself because of these propaganda excuses because you are too much of a pussy to die potentially die for freedom in a nuclear war?

All evil regimes including the Nazi's in WW2 have these propaganda based excuses to justify their aggression and mass murder, knowing they exist doesn't magically transform morality from black-and-white to whatever form of relativistic grey like you and others here are attempting.

Now, I'm interested in the actual reason all of you are doing this...

I want to believe it's just fear that would cause people to defend evil but I'm truly not sure atm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

However if one doesn't independently try to seek out the truths in the complexity and acknowledge the real facts and events, and generally deduce the value-judgments with the view to accurate moral justice and injustices, because one's authority the msm is slow to reveal them, one is superfluous to this debate. 

These "Objectivists" are committed to the opposite. Steadfast evasion as a matter of principle and pride.

They will never meet you in good faith.

Edited by Jon Letendre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay it's time to stop feeding all the moral relativism trolls who don't even believe pride and possessing principles are fundamental moral virtues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

. . .

This adds up to a chain of initiated force begun with the first cause, a rash, antidemocratic revolution in an originally young, hopeful nation that set the wheels in motion for the  result, a compromised and flawed democracy more familiar to many African countries. (Not to add, of a succession of corrupt governments)So from another perspective, in Putin's perception, he likely saw himself as 'coming to the rescue' of a repressed minority trapped over the Russian border who had suffered injustices, due to identifying more-closely with Russia - who were shortly about to be attacked this year by superior forces supplied and trained by NATO, and probably would be annihilated. From "his point of view", I stress, his 'rescue mission' was a humanitarian, preemptive and defensive action, continuing and escalating from the civil war. I condemn it. . . .

 

Tony, do you condemn Bush's aggression in Iraq? Do you see that it was an aggression and that a preemptive invasion is an aggression? Do you see that the fact that Sadaam had aggressed against Iraq's own peoples does not make Bush's invasion, however benevolent, into not an aggression? Do you condemn Putin's invasion as an aggression?

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...