bangkok

can we regulate the algorithms that favor radical views and clicks for controversy? i'm good with giving whoever the fuck wants to spew their bullshit have the ability to do that, as long as that bullshit isn't promoted for profit. in an idealistic world, social media should reflect the viewpoints, opinions, and debates of the world at large. that would be fine. the problem is, that idealistic world doesn't exist in the status quo. i do think the censoring of content is dangerous and contrary to our shared values.. and that censoring breeds hate and disenfranchisement. and yes, it was entirely necessary to kick trump off and attempt to stop the misinformation, but i'm arguing that's not actually the best case scenario here - we shouldn't be aiming for twitter to police and fact check. i think it's their own internal system that needs the policing, then the crazies would have less of an echo chamber but still able to spew their verbal vomit. free speech and all.

cheers to all of you with a peace-oriented viewpoint.

long time supporter but never enrolled. my formative years were spent in austin - i'm a chef and worked at a couple of the top restaurants in austin. i went to culinary school at the former le cordon bleu outpost by the domain. i love the city and the school. i've followed texas - mostly athletics, since.

this is a great post, thank you for that. i'm in full agreement ukraine deserves democracy and peace - as any country who seeks that, does too. i also agree it's clear which side most of the misinformation is coming from. my point is that it's also important to look at the other side to gain some sense of understanding. we largely agree. i'm also in agreement that we shouldn't be allowing putin to dictate the outcome of this. he's backed in a corner, he's desperate, that's probably good but fuck is it dangerous too. give the man an out. if we don't do that, i think the loss of life and repercussions are at risk of becoming significantly worse if we continue to provide an endless supply of weapons to ukraine. i'd love to see a diplomatic end to this as soon as possible. on a slightly different note, i'd also like to ask why now is where the line in the sand must be drawn? clearly we've watched the buildup of troops for months and did very little. and for years his ambitions were met with very little resistance. now clearly putin is unhinged and overestimated his capabilities and western response. i'd love to see him fuck off and minimize loss of life and end the war. right now it appears we're content with buckling down and continuing this for months, with great risk of escalation. i find that troubling. what's the best case scenario in your view?

yea, you may be right. i'm not sure. i don't really think any one of us could be sure who's "right" as this is a charged situation, continually evolving, and what information we're given is incomplete and biased. i'll give you that. i'm saying we're on equal footing and our opinions are relatively equally valid as the possible outcomes of this war aren't able to be analyzed with a costs and benefits, and surly isn't quite a peer-reviewed journal either. we're all guessing here. your opinion isn't more valid than mine prima facia, but i'm open to listening and changing my views if you'd express that clearly. if i said nuke russia, or abandon ukraine completely, i'd imagine either of those views would be justifiably and heavily criticized. what i'm saying is probably as reasonable as it gets. no escalation from either side, and do whatever we can to broker peace. and you're saying i'm a moron without countering my concerns. you're attacking my intelligence rather than addressing the issues. that's moronic. so please give me an explanation of why hoping for the most peaceful resolution here makes me a moron. all that said, i do feel like a moron for responding to this because i don't think you'll be able to put together a coherent response - so prove me wrong, i'm all ears.

right, because i don't think exactly as you do, i'm inferior?

peace for ukraine isn't necessarily or exclusively up to them, right now. why? well, the support they've received from the west, from us, with weapons and sanctions, and with accepting their refugees isn't a one-way street. we're not just supporting them blindly because we're united against russia, so they can choose their own path "up to them." we have our say and our own agenda. i also would suggest we have our say in steering putin towards his "best" option too. we can sort of say, "you're fucked dude, so back off or escalate and get fucked harder." but say it nicely. don't bully and threaten. let our position of strength speak for itself. that's a tougher line to walk, a more hardline approach, but we have options diplomatically. we're supporting ukraine because a democratic ukraine supports our own ideals in a larger front and with longer term goals. so our say ideally should be "make amends" and make those amends quite a tough pill to swallow to putin, but one where he can take home some semblance of pride and not tough enough to encourage him to escalate. then support ukraine under the table with more weapons, financially, politically, to deter something like this happening again. and also hope russia overthrows putin and finds a different path for their own future - idealistic, maybe, but give that best case scenario a chance to play out before looking towards an alternative.

yea, so i've demonstrated that i do exactly that. i'm skeptical of everything.. or intend to be, at least. no bias, all questions is my mantra. so if you can demonstrate why you think i'm full of shit, i'll also address that. but your argument is "i think" without any basis or reasoning. and that's a worthy argument?

i'll speak for myself here. yes peace should be the priority. but not by "any means," just make it clear to putin that would be his best bet, to walk away. flex while giving him an out. the short term and long term implications of this war are also a major consideration. what russia is doing is far beyond unethical.. it's atrocious, disgusting, and at risk of further escalation. stop that bullshit, if we can, before it escalates. this is a deeper issue than ethics, and putin has demonstrated his lack of exactly that while targeting civilians. it's sick, and he wants us to feel sick, to feel threatened. and he's losing, and we know that, but still this shit fucking sucks, war sucks. i'd like to know: for all of you claiming peace isn't possible, so let's fuck all the ruskies up and demonstrate our superiority like we should! how much support should we give? and what happens if cornered putin deploys chemical weapons or tactical nukes? what do we do? i'm asking legitimately because i think many of you haven't thought ahead to adequately address this. what consequences and loss of life is acceptable?

i'm about as anti-war as one may be, and i also try to look at all sides of an issue. i'm a skeptic. i've never voted. i think we see a ton of misinformation, propaganda from all angles. i hate the political climate of the states, which is part of why i live in bangkok. i want to know what conservatives are spouting on an issue, and same with progressives.. i try to look at multiple news sources and opinions. that said, trump was a horrible president, and his presidency influences putins actions today. i don't typically take sides.. i try to look at all angles, everything's a grey area for me. what one person benefits from, another suffers.. no one's right, and everyone has their own agenda. i'm hoping we pursue a peaceful agenda and can take a longer-term view of that while flexing our military, economic, and political muscles to encourage peace.

true. but he does have conceptions and intentions of restoring soviet-era territories and re-establishing russia as country you don't fuck with directly, like the cold war. and he's not getting any younger, so his political ambitions are sort of now or never. a weakened russia strengthens the west and encourages democracy and of course thats a good thing for us. i also think this isn't necessarily an end all, be all moment - we can and should encourage a delay here, a stalemate. support our interests after the violence. and yes i think ukraine would be willing to embrace that, while also understanding they have their own ambitions and deserve their own opportunities to shape the future of the country as they see fit, democratically. all good. so can we make putin walk, give him what he wants right now - as what he's stated is pure propaganda, so call him on it, call the bluff. what he's stated is clearly not reality and demonstrative of his intentions. maybe he's killed or politically deemed not in russia's best interest (economically).. let it ride. don't risk escalation over this, as tempting as that is - that's what he wants. don't give him that option. our policy should be ok dude, clearly you fucked up. go home and we'll give you an out. and yea if it's an escalation where tactical nukes are deployed, it should be an immediate no-fly zone enforced by nato. let the motherfucker have an opportunity to call his shot but lay out the options first. and be prepared to respond either way. peace deserves every opportunity first though.

false premise, non sequitur. so, no addressing that directly would be illogical. clearly we're the worlds strongest military and economic power. our interests rightfully lie in maintaining that. i'm advocating we best maintain that power by sending a weakened putin home where he can spout a moral victory (a la aggy beating bama), which his own people will eat up. rather than forcing him into submission directly, which would likely escalate things. we'd kick his ass, at a high cost though.. lets avoid that. every other county, probably outside of his closest allies can see he was defeated, a victory for us. (again, like aggy) ukraine pursues democracy hopefully, though it's in its infancy and conflict will continue. the danger to the contrary (indefinitely sending weapons), lies in escalating this to a point where hundreds of thousands of innocents may be at risk, and it may further risk a full-scale nato response. yes we'd fuck them up, at a very high cost. avoid war. so, in your bullied kid scenario which is not an appropriate analogy, russia actually would be the bullied kid - not us. we sanctioned them, we sent arms to their enemy, we got all of our friends/allies join with us, we seized their assets, we did everything we could to inflict damage without swinging fists directly. they felt threatened, and like they were looked down upon among the world at large, and aligned with other "bullied kids" - look at their allies. now, is that legit? no fucking way. russia instigated this and brought this on themselves, maybe not too different than a bullied kid might by acting like they were strong or one of the "cool kids", whatever the fuck, misconceptions. and so we want them to go home and think about what they've done, perhaps find a new path, rather than bringing out the semi-autos and raging out the latest school shooting.

are you able to provide a cohesive reply? my contention is peace should be the priority. and yours is.. peace is retarded?

well, i think putin was in over his head here, and he'll very likely try to escalate, especially as he's faced with losses - of face, of troops, economically too. give the man an out, where he can tuck his tail in and trot back home, and still claim victory. let the west view it prima facia. stopping the war should be our foreign policy goal here in the short term. anything less is destructive. any counter arguments are escalatory in nature, but i do understand them. that said, our policy should be promoting peace. the alternative is dangerous. give vlad a chance to tuck and run. if he doesn't accept it, the game changes, but make the effort first.

we are damn close to at war with russia, as the leading economic and military power strongly opposed to russia and supporting ukraine. without our support, it would be over, and overwhelmingly so in russia's favor. and fuck, yes, we get a vote, and fuck, yes we should support them. just stop the violence right now. in our position of power, can we broker a solution to let both sides move on?

lol, what a condescending comment. "maybe you're not familiar with history" wtf? and a strategy of escalation works, then? historically, speaking of course. how about if we offer putin and ukraine both some concessions and minimize the loss of life, the damage, the escalation, the threats of nukes and ww3 and all of that shit? can we aim for an admittedly idealistic goal first and find a peace deal? you seem to be advocating for escalation. it's not off the cards from either side, but you give vlad an out first. why the fuck not, please tell me, mr. history.

while i agree it would be a good solution, i disagree this is our best policy play as it's purely dependent on chance unless our intelligence is more deeply ingrained there than i'd expect. so our strategy is: send all the support, hope someone assassinates putin? doomed to fail. we want russia to get the fuck out, and give them a reason to do exactly that. let them have their moral victory, internally. whatever, just stop the violence. it's clear the real victory was for ukraine though. no more utter nonsense loss of life. let politics run its course, maybe putin isn't around in 10 years. learn our lessons in the meantime. stop this shit before it gets worse for fucks sake. if you don't, it gets worse.

sure he does but jesus fuck you'd have to be naive to think that's an option for putin, politically speaking. it's not. yes this was a war of aggression, yes it was unjustified. and yes, we need to find a way to end it without escalating it further. so here's the choice: tell ukraine to concede a bit, and we'll bolster their defenses, support their democracy, help rebuild, whatever the fuck they want, but let putin claim (fake) victory too. he got his ass kicked, that's clear to see. but let him walk away and claim success. why the fuck not? so putin's options are either to be given a lifeline, or escalate tremendously. the former is best. give that motherfucker a lifeline, first, for fucks sake.

right, it's bullshit, i agree. but give him an out. let him preach his bullshit to his supporters and let him claim some sort of (fake) victory, before this escalates further. ending the violence should be our goal here, no?

i don't know. that's why i'm asking if there's a legitimate peace offer in the cards here - how can russia claim they liberated those damn oppressed pro-russians living in ukraine from the neo nazis, as their propaganda suggests was the purpose of the invasion. somethings got to give - and we need to look to give putin a less violent, or non-violent out.

no, i'm suggesting an end to the violence is superior to an indefinite supplying of arms to ukraine that would continue the destruction and spur potential escalation. the intelligence comment was referenced towards - that's how we're monitoring how we can avoid "crossing the line." our intelligence determines that line, putins thinking. i'm saying the game of "how far can we go?" inevitebly leads to escalation. why do that, if we can offer a peaceful alternative where both sides can agree to disagree and find support on either spectrum.

i'd hate to see this drag on for months, and it seems to be heading that direction. the longer this continues, the more desperate putin becomes. even the discussion of nukes possibly being used is a discussion that shouldn't be happening. we'll keep sending tons of weapons to ukraine, and that pisses putin off as much as the sanctions do. we'll do everything we can to give ukraine support while closely watching putin's reaction to avoid crossing the line. it's clear we have some intelligence closely tied to the kremlin. but.. is that best? i think we should throw out a lifeline, where both sides can walk away and claim victory or at least a draw, a stalemate, a treaty? how do we do that? a 50km or so demilitarized / peacekeeping zone 50km deep into the ukrainian side of the border. anyone russia wanted to "liberate" can move freely into russia if they choose. no violence within. if you want russian rule, go to that side. if you don't, go to the other side. treaty signed includes no nato for ukraine for some-odd number of years, but no promises either if nato countries further bolster ukrainian defenses or support democracy there. and i'm sure russia would also counter with their own shit like "ok, fine, but no promises from us either and we'll support pro-russia government there and regroup for our next moves too." under the table, of course. kind of a fuck you, yea fuck you too, but lets fuck off for awhile. thats better than status quo from both sides, and russia could walk away claiming they liberated ukraine from the neo nazi's and end most of the sanctions. then putin could propagandize that to the general population and claim success. ukraine would also be able to say they successfully defended themselves and gained alot of support from the west, defensively, politically, and financially. something like that on the cards, or am i an ignorant idiot? tl;dr: can putin be given a face-saving out, and what does that entail? or are we committed to making mad vlad prove he's actually, truly mad and accepting the consequences of that?

likely pilot error here, rather than suicide mission. and part of that is due to chinese culture - immense shame brought on one's family, and even the nation at large if that were the case. so we'd have to expect this suicide act was also one intended to bring shame on family and china.. unlikely. mechanical failure is plausible but also unlikely considering the safety records of the aircraft - and that the pilots should be trained to handle any mechanical issues. the flight path is strange and horrific for the victims. most common cause of most crashes: pilot error.

i do wonder the messaging from putin's side. specifically to the west, what was he trying to convey? as 200k troops amassed it was.. nope, no invasion, while all intel points otherwise. then the quick recognization of luhansk/donetsk. followed by a quick invasion and clear plans for regime change. obviously advancing oustide of the "nazi" areas. followed by an ass-kicking to this point, by most reports. it's ludicrous.

right, i definitely think it would have been loosely supportive of russia at minimum. skeletons in the closet or whatever. and the republicans would have jumped on board with that, sure. i just don't see how he could have bridged the huge support of ukraine from the west while sucking off putin at the same time. would have been quite a dynamic.