Senate Russia: its impact on the world, its invasion of Ukraine, and its future

On this one, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Which is precisely one of those radical differences between cultures that all too often goes unacknowledged. You have your reasons to think we are wrong - and the reverse is true.

 

Yup.



There were so many incoming missiles and, in response, air defense that this was bound to happen sooner or later.

 

I don’t have a problem with you implementing another policy. I just think it’s dishonest to say ‘we tried this multiculturalism thing and it just doesn’t work.’ You don’t want a multicultural state. You want a national culture which immigrants assimilate into. But the reasons for wanting this are separate from ‘it doesn’t work.’

 

This is not what I am saying - quite far from it, as a matter of fact. But that you understood it this way is another sign of just how different our respective cultures are.

 

I don’t think this is a matter of cultural mistranslation Lordban. You said multiculturalism is impossible to practice without accepting that other cultures have radically different ethics to you, to which I pointed out that this misses the point of what happens when different cultures successfully co-exist in the same state and where these differences aren’t really much of a concern (i.e ethical differences between cultures are a thing but are not particularly pronounced within successful multicultural societies).

But you clearly don’t wish to have this conversation, given your last two comments, so I’ll move on.

 

It is a matter of mistranslation of some sort, as the scope of this discussion began on how fundamental differences exist between countries within and without the EU. We weren't discussing a "same state" problematic, but differences between independent states and, notably, how a number of Eastern European states promote ethical values fundamentally different from those promoted by the EU itself.

That conversation starts by acknowledging Europe isn't a single political body. It continues with the necessity of acknowledging that in different countries and different cultures, non-primary cultures won't always equal rights with the primary culture, like is the case in most of the world. The alternate view you presented, ie. "other cultures have just as much right to live along side you in your state as your culture", is an answer acceptable in your culture, but not in many others. It is also not the legal reality in a majority of countries in this world, which is usually supported by a majority of the populations in the countries in question.

 

I quoted someone who was referencing cultural differences within a multicultural society (namely Egyptian immigrants to Canada) not merely international relations between culturally distinct states. It also strains the word multiculturalism if you start to apply it beyond a state. The world is by definition always and forever multicultural. It’s only within a state where a multicultural policy can be said to exist, everything else is just international relations and the extent there can be supernational law or federalism (as is the case in the EU).

I’m not particularly convinced by what the majority of people think. The majority of people can profess a system which is not beneficial to a peaceful and just society. Americans consistently vote for ideas which are detrimental to their society. The majority of people also live in states which are de facto multicultural, but the dominant culture wishes to push out smaller cultures for their own benefit.

I’m generally also not convinced by the idea that cultures are sometimes ethically irreconcilable, and I think suggestions that this is the case in any fundamental sense isn’t helpful. Ethics change drastically over time and depend greatly upon the material conditions of the people expressing them. Hungary and the Netherlands may be fairly ethically distant at this time. They also have dramatically different recent history and wealth. This distance may be shortened to being fairly inconsequential in 50 years.

 

I'm on a phone so just going to address one point quickly: some cultures consider homosexuality as deserving of a death sentence. Do you think there might be an incompatibility there with other cultires?

 

Many in the Western world once thought similarly.

In one prominent example, Iran, I’m skeptical that this is an attitude which would be maintained if the large secular middle class ruled the country rather than a theocratic oligarchy. I don’t think these attitudes are so culturally engrained that they can’t change in a generation or two.

If we’re talking about national immigration, these types of attitudes rarely stay beyond first generation migrants (if there is class mobility and cross-cultural socialisation).

 

There was that report recently out of the UN about both sides commiting war crimes. I actually just saw a video in which both sides commit war crimes in a matter of a few seconds. That’s war though. Doesn’t make it good. Or right for either side. But there is still one side which I blame for all of this. Mistreating prisoners is horrible. And both sides should be held to account on that. But they almost certainly will not.

 

And that is the transformation of cultures via a process of assimilation of new values, either brought in from outside or propped up by an active minority from the inside (sometimes both). But it's a long-term prospect and takes patience and work; it does not, however, address immediate difficulties or the fact that, from their own point of view, the people involved with radically different ethics also consider themselves perfectly justified.

Wars are primarily fought by masses of younger people given arms, an enemy and a license to kill. And in the present instance, the matter is complicated by one side actively using criminals to prosecute their war effort.

Ukraine, as it stands, is viiolating, inter alia, its own signature to the European Convention of Human Rights. Russia resolved that issue by reneging on its signature to the same convention. Both are in violation of the UN charter. Neither will be sanctioned for it - Russia will veto any sanctions against itself, and it's essentially impossible to sanction the attacked party in a war for a lesser scale of abuses than those committed by the attacking party. Both will be going scot-free.

 

We’re not talking about joining Iran and Sweden in political union. We’re talking about the social conservatism of Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe. Attitudes have already changed fairly dramatically in the last 30 years on the topic of LGBT relationships and I’m not sure anyone really cares that much about ‘the gays’ when those juicy EU subsidises are at risk.

Multiculturalism in a national context is even less bound by time.

 

The video I mentioned yesterday is getting a lot more traction. Just to fill you in just in case

Spoiler: Depressing

a whole group of Russian soldiers we’re surrendering to Ukraine most of them at the time were laid down on the ground. Sadly one Russian soldier decided to commit a war crime and fake surrender. This lead to one of the Ukrainians being shot and in the end the Ukrainians shot all the Russians. Not just the one who feigned it. They were all shot dead. Hence both sides commiting a war crime.

I just saw it getting a lot more traction and Russia even commenting on it. I like how they forget to mention it was started by their guy doing the war crime. Yes the Ukrainian troops shouldn’t have responded how they did. But war is scary as ****. How would they know that the threat was over? Both sides were in the wrong.

 

The United Nations will always be hamstrung by the fact that the Permanent Members of the Security Council are immune to any sort of measure of censure or sanction the UN might try to pass.

 

What happened there is for the most part standard procedure when taking on prisoners who outnumber you. You set up a machine gun, have the people come out and lay down on the ground. You don't go to them, because if you do, you block your own machine gun, which you don't want. Then you tell one person at a time to stand up and come over, to search him and cuff him. If at any time someone moves who shouldn't be moving, the machine gun is supposed to open fire. Especially if one or more enemies suddenly start shooting. And yes, using a surrender to attack the enemy is indeed a warcrime.

Making use of fake surrenders to surprise the enemy happened way to often in wars for armies not to be extremely cautious when dealing with a surrender. That also means that someone who doesn't want to surrender can ruin it for everyone else. Which also means the whole thing will turn into a complete mess if anything happens to one of the people who are taking prisoners. Not that killing people who were lying on the ground would be in any way acceptable in return. At least not unless they are actively participating in what the one who started it all was doing.

 

Hence the both sides thing. Although the Ukrainians did more harm by killing more people who probably didn’t need to die. That ****ing dumb Russian ruined it all for his squad.

 

I think this is an odd point to bring up. Specifically, this is an issue of governmental policy: should something be classified as a crime or not? That's quite separate from questions of cultural values. There are many things that are pretty universally regarded as morally wrong but also are not criminal: cheating on a romantic partner, for instance. Even in the most conservative societies, there tend not to be laws against being unkind, even though the base religions the state derives legitimacy from clearly teach against being unkind.

This does not seem to be a genuine debate about multiculturalism. It is true that cultures certainly differ from one another in how socially desirable they characterize homosexuality. But once we admit that the legal question is separate, the question becomes "What do we do about these disagreements with neighbors?" Multiculturalism provides a certain set of answers for governing relationships when people disagree about cultural ideas. As was said earlier, assimilation is a very distinct approach. I am not confident that multiculturalism, per se, has been very well tested in Europe, let alone that, as you seemed to assert, it doesn't work.

 

It isn't separable. Cultural definitions of ethics tend to translate into law when religion is involved - it isn't so much governmental policy involved as "divine policy". "God" defines the crime. Secular law ends up rejected.

And before anybody hastens to say "that's not what happens", remember that the right to have an LGBT orientation is a legitimate claim for asylum, and has been increasingly prevalent across the past decade. Which really isn't surprising if you look at a map of rights.

Ah well, I suppose this distracts from Russia attempting an energy-driven holodomor. Who cares if a few hundred thousand Ukrainians die of cold this winter to do anything about it, amirite?

And yes, I am bloody furious about this happening while nobody gives a damn.

 

Vladimir Putin is creating a thousand years of hatred in Ukraine. To paraphrase Peter Hitchens, where ever the war goes from here, Vladimir Putin has confirmed all the worst anti-Russian prejudices and he has condemned his country to a new period of isolation, censorship, and institutional stupidity.

 

Russian expert on state TV thinking that "Nazis" might be discovered next in Kazakhstan.

 

Putin recently met with Russian military moms and wives to reassure them.

So, Putin shares in their pain, but Putin must still be Putin.

 

Is the euphemism for something else? Like off to the Gulag?

 

I'm not sure. The recent celebrations in Moscow where attractive and intellectual men and women in Russian leadership positions sang and danced into the late hours of the night was supposed to bring the unity needed to keep this thing going.

 

Belarus' foreign minister has died "suddenly"

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-foreign-minister-makei-dies-belta-2022-11-26/

 

Well, this apparently here is the good news. As long as NATO forms a wall of counter-action against nuclear Russia, then that's fine. And by that, I mean the government of Russia. I'm glad that several Russian citizens have protested the war, and I don't agree with Russophobia against anyone, regardless of whatever nationality they are in the Russian Federation.

At any rate, I am concerned about what Darth Accipiter was saying, since Putin and the dictator of Belarus keep killing all these government folks, journalists, and business people. Regardless of whether or not these folks are moderate or anti-Putin or whatever, it is concerning that the mass killings of political opponents has been under-reported. While it's well-known for folks like us, I actually checked, and it appears that Chris Wallace's casual questions about Putin targeting political opponents is just lesser known.