Yeah, agreed. They changed from:

"Performatively obediently a bunch of good people, and definitely not a malicious hive of American Psycho lawyers and professional thieves, mining and sanding down and reselling the dreams of children, who would be perfectly happy harvesting organs from prisoners or anything else that would enable them to profit and won't get them in trouble"

To:

"Performatively obedient to a separate bunch of people who would also be happy harvesting organs et cetera, as long as they'll leave us alone to make our money, and we won't get in trouble"

There's not much of value in the alteration, other than noting one more from the variety of outlets hewing ever more closely to the Nazis if they think it'll enable them to keep their heads down and be safe. It will not.

To me, it sounds like the rail network is falling apart from lack of maintenance, and the rail company is pretending it’s someone else’s fault that things aren’t getting shipped. Here’s a little more coherent article:

https://www.uawire.org/russia-faces-looming-fuel-shortage-as-railway-network-falters-amid-war-and-sanctions

I’m still not sure if that’s the answer, and I don’t know why the stories are so bizarrely put together. But that to me is what it sounds like.

As with a lot of things, the federal government isn't a big monolithic robot. Think of it like a vast tribe of weasels. Sometimes, they'll work together as if by instinct, and they can do great things for either good or evil. Sometimes they just hang around biting on each other. A lot of the time, some of the far-flung parts of it are working on totally different activities than the core wants or is aware of. It is animate, it just kind of does what it wants to do. Most governments are like that to at least some extent, and the American one is far more like that even than the norm.

I think part of the issue is that fixing American health care involves interfering with some of the boss weasels' mealtimes, and so of course the whole system is going to get very upset and savage you if you try to do anything to change it. Fixing health care for some refugees in some particular location costs a miniscule amount of money and effort, by comparison, and it doesn't do anything to un-enrich anybody who's currently being showered with riches, so it can proceed unimpeded.

The "we will protect you" part. Where did you see that? There's actually a specific discussion about it (talking about "security guarantee" and "security assurance", because it was debated at the time) and what the outcome was.

Because I react very differently to people who saw "report, didn't like, ban the person who reported" and are without further investigation giving their reaction to that (totally insane) decision, versus the people who clicked the link, talked with me about the context, and things like that.

Most of the people who simply assumed that I personally thought the report was invalid and so I banned the person (which would, again, be an absolutely insane thing to do), I'm just discounting whatever they have to say about it. Sorry. I don't need someone to tell me that that would be nuts.

Some of the people who clearly wanted to understand the fuller scope also told me I was a PTB. Which, maybe so. Some of them found the person I was talking about and read the profile and said "Holy smokes that guy's clearly off his rocker" or some variation. We talked about it. I'm not out here trying to be stubborn about my way only, but I'm also not required to accept whatever anybody tells me just because they're telling it to me. Sorry. A lot of it has to do with how much effort they seem like they put into understanding what happened.

Very good idea. Done.

I always find it fascinating when a whole bunch of people all start saying the same wrong thing about something.

I posted below a link to Wikipedia explaining what actually happened with this. I feel like the game of me disagreeing with this person is just going to get swallowed into an expanding tide of people arguing and insisting on things. Read the article.

It's a fair point. I talked more about it here:

https://ponder.cat/post/1596872/1816086

Basically, my point is, they knew exactly who FlyingSquid was and were familiar with Lemmy already from some other accounts, and on their first day, started reporting comments of his without claiming that anything was wrong with them, saying that just because of who he is, any comment of his deserves to be reported.

I can understand the point of view that a permaban for that behavior is too much. As a general rule, I actually agree 100%. But to me looking at the context, their other comments, and especially how they reacted when I asked them not to do that, it was time for them to go.

Edit: Also... I do want to apologize a bit for this sequence of events (Please understand that I am listening and this whole conversation was valuable for me to understand and check myself on it):

• Me: AITPTB?
• People: FUCK YES
• Me: Well, if you saw the DMs I won't show you, you'd understand. I'm still right.

The Budapest memorandum! Fun stuff. Instead of all of us arguing, I recommend for people to read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content

I can really see why it is that some people have a hard-on for trying to destroy Wikipedia. A lot of the misery that's been washing over the world for the last 10 years or so is because they've developed really incredibly powerful tools for unmooring people's perceptions of reality from what the actual reality is, and Wikipedia is starting to stick out as a trusted source of truth, as the others fall and crumble one by one.

1. Because giving one party everything they're asking for at gunpoint isn't really a "deal," that's just them winning.
2. Because part of the concern is that there's no particular guarantee, if we have a peace deal, that the peace will continue after the deal. Both iterations of Russia's original invasion were accompanied by strident denials that they were invading, because that was crazy Western propaganda, and nobody's going to invade Ukraine. A person who's willing lie to you about the present and past, is even more likely to lie to you about the future.

Edit: Actually, even more telling: One of Russia's key demands, apparently, is that it is ABSOLUTELY OFF THE TABLE that Ukraine get security guarantees from anyone, now or ever in the future. In the mode of abusers everywhere, the one thing that is an absolute atrocity which will cause them to go ballistic is if they are threatened with consequences if they don't adhere to the terms of the deal. The deal they are swearing they will, of course, how could you even think otherwise, adhere to.

I resurrected this solely because I wanted to continue a conversation with @Objection@lemmy.ml because I thought they were making a pretty fair argument.

It seems to me that it wasn’t so much that they “snapped out of it” as that they were trying to argue in good faith from the start, and got sidetracked because of your antics.

The alt-right playbook is good stuff for dealing with alt-right people or those who employ similar tactics, but if you resort to that right off the bat without justification, then you’re the one who’s out of line.

Yeah. Since I've been trying not to do this, I've caught myself a few of times typing something super-sarcastic, deleted it, and written just a straight explanation of what I'm trying to say, and it always works better. If the person was bad-faith, then it becomes a little more clear who's the bad party, instead of it just being a big snark fight. If they weren't (which has also happened), it saves a whole bunch of grief and hostility on all sides. I was really surprised how well it worked. Maybe that sounds stupid but it was a big revelation to me.

You should use a carrot and stick approach. If someone is sticking to the facts, you stick with the facts, if they start doing weird psychological bullshit, then you deploy countermeasures to force them back to the facts.

This is where it gets to where I have to make a conscious effort. To me, the original message I was replying to was in no way sticking to the facts. It was "factual" in the sense of, no personal attacks or anything, but it was so far removed from a good-faith argument that I just couldn't take it seriously as something someone actually believes. Like:

• Point: Ukraine is mad about the bullshit peace agreement! (Okay, sure, seems pretty reasonable.)
• Counterpoint: Let's bring Kamala Harris into it! Harris would obviously have pressured them with the same bullshit peace agreement! Trump isn't exceptionally dangerous for Ukraine and its aid! The absolutely shocking-to-the-world-at-the-time resistance and counteroffensive Ukraine has been able to do against a 20-times-larger opponent is proof that the West isn't helping, and therefore Trump is the same as Harris! The real answer is that Ukraine should have nukes!

I'm exaggerating, but only a little.

I actually do think you're right and I should have taken the snark out. But not because the original argument was something that really needed to be dealt with on the merits, although I did try to make a point to address the merits also instead of just jeering.

Sweet! That is exactly it, thank you.

You're not wrong. It's one among a couple of reasons I'm trying not to do so much sarcasm and meanness on Lemmy. It's a hard habit to break.

On the other hand, nothing about what I said was personal. I was pointing out the huge separation between what's real, and what they were basing their argument on. My experience is that replying to that kind of post at face value, and just doing a detailed factual rebuttal of it like you're doing a class presentation, is a mug's game, because they'll just come back at you with a bunch of firm insistence that everything you said is wrong. Bullshit asymmetry principle and all. I did so that a bunch of times early on. I've spent, honestly, days upon days in other internet forums doing it. So, in this comment, I gave the citations, explained myself in detail about why I thought the argument was dishonestly constructed, and also I was kind of a dick about it, also refusing to take part when they tried to seize the conversation and discard everything I said and ask a bunch of new questions, generally lay a new groundwork for our interaction in which they get to push me around and control what's judged right and wrong and what we're talking about, and I'm a big jerk somehow if I don't go along with it.

Was the way I did it productive? Honestly, I don't know. They did snap out of it and actually start responding in detail to what I was saying, though, after I did it for a few messages, so maybe there was something of value to it. Like I say, I don't think you are wrong that sometimes the way I do it is excessively mean.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

I can link it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The section about what Russia said about the memorandum when they invaded Crimea was pretty interesting too, and new to me.

This was two years ago

So it doesn't count anymore, two years is way too long from today.

doesn’t seem like it’s actually gonna happen on any timeframe, one year from now, two years from now, ten years from now

So it's certainly assured what will happen ten years from now, based on what's happening today.

Got it. Makes perfect sense, I'm following so far.

You can feel free to link me sources if you disagree with me saying this.

You want me to give you a citation for what's going to happen ten years from now? Actually, no. You're telling me what's going to happen ten years from now, and demanding a citation otherwise, if I disagree.

Who is saying these terms are unacceptable Zelensky?

Zelensky has said he wouldn't give up land before. That was a little while ago, and things can change. I doubt he would want to say anything about the peace agreement before it's negotiated. He has offered to swap land, Kursk for the occupied Ukrainian territories.

Mostly, what I mean by saying that is that I think it's unacceptable, for reasons pretty similar to the posted meme. I think that it's likely that the offer on the table for Ukraine is "accept Russia's terms, or no more aid" and they'll have to make a nasty choice between those alternatives. How they feel or what they will do, I don't know. But I'm fairly well convinced that those are the options they'll be choosing between, and that Harris wouldn't have done that. Can you give me a citation otherwise?

if the deal is if one side will stop the other side if the other side breaks the deal

Russia agrees not to invade, then invades, and you put the onus on the West? I already pointed out that the "one side will stop the other side" is nowhere in the memorandum. I don't know why you are persistently pretending it is, or ignoring me pointing out that it isn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content

I made sure to go through your arguments point by point, and the only part you responded to initially was my meta-commentary at the end, after I was done with all my arguments and questions directly responding to what you were saying.

Innuendo Studios is gold. They have a new one up now, post-coup, that's pretty haunting.

Yes 1991(?) Ukraine agreed to give Russia the nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for Russia agreeing not to unilaterally attack them, it’s very well known.

Fixed it for you! You already provided the citation, so I don't need to. There was no NATO-style protection in the memorandum, otherwise Russia would have no reason to freak out about them joining NATO now, and getting security guarantees.

Fine. I will ignore the blatant attempt to redirect the conversation ignoring everything I said, and simply ask you.

How are you trying to get away with saying that Ukraine can't recapture any territory with the West's help, when they did exactly that in 2022? Why are you ignoring Trump actively trying to sabotage Ukraine aid and risk the semi-stalemate turning into an outright loss, which is a pretty fuckin' salient difference and what he got impeached for? And also, presumably, what he is teeing up to do again by offering unacceptable peace terms to Ukraine right now? Whose fault is it, solely and completely, that the Budapest Memorandum didn't assure Ukraine's security in this instance?

That's me: Always breakin' stuff. Sorry about that.