6d ago

Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

theconversation.com Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

A decision to negotiate over the heads of the Ukrainians would reveal just how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://theconversation.com/ukraine-isnt-invited-to-its-own-peace-talks-history-is-full-of-such-examples-and-the-results-are-devastating-250049

Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

231 comments

No, you're the one coping out by both refusing to engage in good faith AND refusing to do the work of fact checking if you want to be so pedantic and skeptical. You want to have it both ways. And in the end the result is always you ignoring information and arguments you don't like. If you're not invested enough in your objection to skim through 15 minutes of transcript you shouldn't be invested enough to keep flapping your mouth in ignorance of it.
- I would've been happy to engage if they stated what point they were trying to make and how and what part of the video they are citing. I'm still happy to do that. If you're expecting others to just figure that out by themselves from a 26 minute video, you are going to have a bad time. If it's not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it's fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
  When you are making an argument, you are trying to convince the other person. If you don't clearly make your case and rely on them to figure out your argument and what supports it, it's just not going to work well. At that point it feels like the person is trying to convince themselves and not the other person.
  I understand you're upset about me not doing the work for them, but there's no need not to be civil about this. This seems to just be a case of us having a very different expectation on what people should do in arguments or how they should argue.
  
  If it’s not fine on a study or thesis, why would you think it’s fine in a fast paced short form internet argument?
  Impossible to take you seriously when you don't have a moment's dissonance saying shit like this. "If it's not correct in context A it shouldn't be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like"
  You aren't even attempting the mental gymnastics. You're just saying 2+2 = 5 without added effort.
  
  “If it’s not correct in context A it shouldn’t be correct in context B which is almost exactly opposite to what context A looks like”
  I mean, the point was that if it is not okay to cite just a full book in a context where the communication is a lot slower, text is a lot longer, there's an expectation of reading a lot more and so on, then why would it be okay in an online argument where the communication is a lot quicker, texts a lot shorter and you aren't expected to read at all as much.
  To put it in simpler terms: If you shouldn't assume that someone is going to read a whole book for a citation in your thesis, why would you expect that from someone reading a random internet argument? I hope that helps explain it, tell me if I need to clarify further.
  
  You don't need to clarify anything; you're just being wrongheaded. First, just because YOU'RE a freak hitting F5 until your finger breaks doesn't mean asynchronous text is a 'faster' medium. No one's forcing you to talk out of your ass. No one's forcing you to respond as fast as you can. You have permission to stop replying if the person you're arguing with is better read than you and you want to incorporate their knowledge base into your own. And if you don't you're saying that your ignorance is as valuable as their knowledge.
  Why would you expect someone to read something just because someone said "I got this information from here"? My child, no one expects you to do that. They expect you to take their word for it. And if you are so hostile as to be motivated to accuse them of lying, you take on the exercise of exposing them.
  I'm astounded by how doggedly you're asserting your lazy entitlement.
  
  I'm just telling you how it works generally in an online arguments. You're free to post a whole book or a long video as an argument. It's just that most people aren't going to engage with that and it won't work well to prove an argument to the other people. I'm sorry that it upsets you, it's not my intention.
  
  Oh wow I didn't know I was being visited by his holiness the arbiter of how online arguments should and do work. And by holy decree you've asserted that it works however allows you to be the laziest, most bad faith and anti-intellectual.
  I have an idea of how things should work: either engage or don't. You don't have to live like a fucking weasel trying to sidestep arguments with "but you didn't give me a timestamp" and "lol u mad" all the time. You can just shut the fuck up, you know.
  Doing these things doesn't make you more right. Just the opposite.
  
  I mean don't take my word for it, see how internet arguments generally work out there in internet. If you come off with a different idea on how they generally work, then it's an agree to disagree situation imo.
  You don’t have to live like a fucking weasel trying to sidestep arguments with “but you didn’t give me a timestamp” and “lol u mad” all the time. You can just shut the fuck up, you know.
  No need for these sort of outbursts. Against the rules too...
  
  I mean don’t take my word for it, see how internet arguments generally work out there in internet.
  Delusional. You look. Who out there is using more strict citation rules than academic papers?
  You don’t have to live like a fucking weasel trying to sidestep arguments with “but you didn’t give me a timestamp” and “lol u mad” all the time. You can just shut the fuck up, you know.
  I stand by these words and add to them: Fuck you tone policing. Go fuck yourself a second time for the behavior I called out here. Punk ass.
  
  Who out there is using more strict citation rules than academic papers?
  I wasn't asking even for the same rules, just saying that even when there's the expectation that your reader does academic work when reading you don't put in a whole book.
  I stand by these words and add to them: Fuck you tone policing. Go fuck yourself a second time for the behavior I called out here. Punk ass.
  It's the rules. Take it up with mods of this sub and instance.
  
  And my position is that you're a lazy piece of shit crybaby who can't argue in good faith. You can't accept someone saying "I remember reading it in this book" without jumping down their throat and demanding they do work for you for no other purpose than for you to smugly ignore what they say. Fuck you.
  You were born stupid and you're going to die stupid.

231 comments